Lets get this out of the way right off the bat: It doesnt bother me that I did not become president of the United States after trying to do so. Im having the best time of my life hosting my radio show, running this web site, speaking at events across the country and generally enjoying life.

So Im good.

But the country is not doing nearly so well, and that has a lot to do with the fact that the president we did select should have been clearly recognized as not up to the task. And yet the majority of those who voted didnt recognize that (although it seems a majority does now). Why is that?

I think its because the criteria we use in determining who should be our president makes little sense, and has little to do with the actual job the chief executive is responsible for doing.

As the chief executive of the federal government, the president is responsible for faithfully executing the laws, for responsibly budgeting and overseeing the use of the Treasurys resources, of leading and managing a team of high-level executives, of working with Congress on proposed legislation, and of serving as commander in chief of the Armed Forces.

Obviously it matters what the presidents political philosophies are, but that sinks almost into irrelevance if he or she cannot competently perform the functions I listed above.

With that in mind, lets consider the dynamics that led to the matchup we saw in 2012. In the Republican primary race, we had a series of people rise to the top and then fall back. Rick Santorum was the choice of social conservatives. Ron Paul was the choice of libertarians. Newt Gingrich was the choice of those who saw themselves as more intellectual and spoiling for a fight with the Democrats. For a while, I was the choice of a grassroots group that liked my business experience and my 9-9-9 plan.

Eventually we settled on Mitt Romney after all of the above fell by the wayside for one reason or another, in spite of the fact that there really wasnt a group rabidly supporting him. He was just the last person standing, which is sort of ironic because Mitts background was about as strong as anyones with respect to the qualifications I outlined above. (And for the record, I think he would have been a very good president.)

But we werent talking about any of those things during the campaign. We were talking about who got off what zinger in a debate, or who committed a gaffe, or who was rated as more conservative by this or that interest group, or who was put on the defense by a real or imagined scandal. We really never talked about who was ready for the exceedingly difficult executive challenges of the presidency. The political press wasnt interested in that question, and the candidates (often at the behest of their campaign strategists) choose to stay on point talking about other things.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were perfectly happy with President Obama  not because he was running the government skillfully but because he was looking out for their political interests. They had chosen him four years earlier in what became little more than a pandering contest over whether we would make history by electing a black man or a woman. Obama was able to give inspiring speeches, I guess, and he still thinks thats a governing strategy. No one else seems to think its working very well.

Lost in all this is any thought about who is actually capable of leading  of performing the executive functions inherent to the office. Prior to becoming president, Obama had never held any executive position whatsoever. If he had been applying for an executive job at any company, he would have been laughed out of the interview room as hopelessly unqualified. Yet he was able to get himself elected president of the United States  once and then again.

That can only have happened because the way we choose presidents makes no sense whatsoever. We reward political performance, not executive achievement, when we choose the top executive for our nation. Then we are troubled when the president looks more like a politician giving a performance than like a serious executive who knows how to lead and get things done.

If someone wanted to write a book titled, How Not to Choose a President, it could actually be a pretty short book. All it would have to say is: The way we do it now.

Cain :”Meanwhile, the Democrats were perfectly happy with President Obama  not because he was running the government skillfully but because he was looking out for their political interests. They had chosen him four years earlier in what became little more than a pandering contest over whether we would make history by electing a black man or a woman. Obama was able to give inspiring speeches, I guess, and he still thinks thats a governing strategy. No one else seems to think its working very well. ‘

Obama was incumbent POTUS with no primary challengers 2012, that gave him a huge advantage right there.

The group of GOP candidates (losers) all fell for Chris Wallace's trap on taxes and spending cuts, all said they would turn down $10 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases while claiming that spending was killing the economy. Obama couldn't buy negative advertising like that.

Besides, since Cain says that Romney would have made a fine POTUS his editorial lacks a purpose,Romney got it.

4
posted on 08/04/2014 5:49:22 AM PDT
by sickoflibs
(King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')

Another item: Congress has proven time and time again that it is not a good factory to produce Presidents.

Dole, McCain, Kerry, to name a few.

Senators are not hired for leadership; they are there to offer an opinion and attempt to persuade others to accept such. They can be wrong 99% of the time (like Teddy Kennedy was) so they do not have to be accountable for their actions.

Governors, on the other hand, have proven leadership skills as they must lead an entire state, and are accountable for their actions.

5
posted on 08/04/2014 5:49:47 AM PDT
by bestintxas
(Every time a RINO bites the dust a founding father gets his wings)

The only president of whom I’m aware with fewer “qualifications” of this type than Obama when entering office was ... A. Lincoln. He had zero executive background of any type, with the exception of running a business into the ground when he was young.

Opinions vary, especially on this forum, about the man and his actions in office. But it is simply not possible to argue that he wasn’t a highly effective executive and leader, arguably the most effective in our history.

The problem with Cain’s argument is that there is a much more imprtant qualification for a President than his ability to effectively lead and execute. It’s the direction he intends to lead us in. A more politically astute and effective version of Obama would be a negative for the country, not a positive.

Another problem is that we aren’t a corporate Board hiring a CEO. The board sets the direction the company should go, and the CEO’s job is to implement their policies. The Board can fire him whenever it chooses.

The President is hired to both set a path and break trail down it. He is effectively unfireable for his term. The business metaphor has some serious flaws.

10
posted on 08/04/2014 6:09:49 AM PDT
by Sherman Logan
(Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)

And speaking of the debates, remember that inane debate in which Stephanopolous(sp?) brought up the issue of whether states can ban contraception. Which in retrospect appears to have been the start of the liberals charging that the GOP had a “war on women”.

If I recall correctly, the candidates were declining to answer the question, saying it was irrelevant, but Stephanopolous kept asking follow up questions about it. If I recall correctly, the crowd started to boo Stephanopolous because he kept at it, and wouldn’t let that line of questioning go.

Couldn’t agree more: there should a leadership qualification test for anyone considering or being considered for a run for the Presidency.

Just like any other position of high responsibility, track record counts.

Further, we should develop a system separate from the political parties to identify potential leaders. We have tens of thousands of serious and successful leaders out there. We should never end up with just Mitt and Obie as our only choices.

14
posted on 08/04/2014 6:16:12 AM PDT
by Chainmail
(A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)

RE :” And speaking of the debates, remember that inane debate in which Stephanopolous(sp?) brought up the issue of whether states can ban contraception. Which in retrospect appears to have been the start of the liberals charging that the GOP had a war on women. If I recall correctly, the candidates were declining to answer the question, saying it was irrelevant, but Stephanopolous kept asking follow up questions about it. If I recall correctly, the crowd started to boo Stephanopolous because he kept at it, and wouldnt let that line of questioning go.”

I would say the question by Wallace on taxes was relevant to the race, but a question like that's(what the states can ban) only purpose is to cause trouble.

Obama made an issue of the Obamacare birth control mandate in 2012 knowing many in the GOP, like Akin, couldn't resist that baited trap.

18
posted on 08/04/2014 6:21:28 AM PDT
by sickoflibs
(King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')

The nation and the world were vastly different places in1860 when Lincoln was elected. So that comparison is not apt. However, I agree with you regarding the importance of a candidate’s ideology. All his decisions are filtered through that lens, and all his actions are the results of those decisions.

The America-hating radical collectivism of a barack obama is clear in his coddling of our enemies, his “you didn’t build that” rhetoric, and his manipulation of class differences to incite strife. Couple those dangerous ideas with his gross incompetence and you have an America teetering on the brink of disaster.

Disagree that the difference in the world between now and then invalidates the comparison between Lincoln and Obama in any way.

The question is one of the severity of the challenges faced and the skill and perseverance with which the President deals with them. Lincoln faced by far the greatest challenge of any president in our history. Even Washington faced no such challenge as President.

That Lincoln dealt with this challenge as successfully and skillfully as he did makes him IMO the most effective President of all, though as noted in my previous post people disagree strongly on the morality and ethics of his methods.

This disagreement, BTW, is a reinforcement for my original contention that a President's ideology and ethics are even more important than his competence.

22
posted on 08/04/2014 6:40:35 AM PDT
by Sherman Logan
(Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)

Even though I like him, I disagree with Herman Cain on this. How we selected this president is NOT as he said. We elected Obama on election day, not during the campaign season. Hypocritical catholics, who claim to be pro life, gave over 50% of their vote to Obama who is pro abortion. Blacks voted predominantly for him because he was one of them. White liberals voted for him because it was ‘time to elect a black president’ regardless of his qualifications. Black Panthers intimidated voters to vote for him. Illegal aliens voted for him. People being fed at the teat of government voted for him. Unions voted for him in overwhelming numbers. Retirees voted for him in New York and again in Florida. Dead people voted for him. AND with all of the sleaze and law breaking, I don’t think that one person is behind bars as a result. Quite the contrary, some are now heading major departments of the Obama government. We have become a lawless banana republic. That is how Mr Obama was elected.

First of all, I think every candidate should be required to do two things in order to run:

First, they should be required to submit a document that answers a finite list of core questions about their political philosophy and what they would do if elected (I've listed a few below - but there are probably better ones). These would be posted online and in public buildings for everyone to read.

1. Why are you qualified and why do you want to be President of the USA?

2. What, in your opinion, is the role of the President in the USA, the most important functions of the President, and the Constitutional limitations of Presidential power? Give at least two recent examples of what you consider Presidential actions beyond the proper scope of Presidential powers.

3. How will you preserve the personal freedoms of US citizens, and what do you believe are the limits to these personal freedoms?

4. What are the biggest economic issues facing the US, and how will you deal with them?

4. What are the most important foreign policy issues facing the US, and the biggest external threats to US security and prosperity? How will you deal with these?

5. What are the most important internal policy issues facing the US, and how will you deal with these?

6. etc. etc.

Second, they should be required to sit in a room without any outside contact, and write a summary (limited to 15 pages), detailing specifically what they will do as President. This would then be typed and posted for the general public, as above.

This would hold them to something, and force them to take a stand that they could not easily run from.

Even a bungler like obama could have fumbled his way through an average 19th-century presidency. Admittedly, Lincoln’s was anything but average! And obama would have made a collosal mess of
It, if he managed to survive an entire term without being impeached (and disregarding the patent absurdity of a black man being elected president in 1859).

But given the relatively miniscule size and scope of the federal government in the mid-19th century, a solid cabinet and a handful of puppet masters could have carried even an empty suit like obama for four years.

Of course, that also means we have to eliminate the slavery tempest that was brewing, along with all the stresses and political complexities it spawned.

Lincoln, despite his lack of executive experience, rose to the rigors of the office because he was intelligent, perceptive, diplomatic, and principled. Obama is none of those things.

Don’t disagree, for the most part. But I think you underestimate the challenges faced by politicians in the 1800s. While the machinery they operated through was a great deal less complex, it was also a great deal less powerful, and the staff and other resources they had nonexistent by modern standards.

A 19th century president, with the unique exception of Lincoln, was MUCH less powerful than a modern president.

In essence, what you are saying is that running a 500 employee company is a great deal less difficult than being CEO of Microsoft. While this is certainly true on some levels, it is very much not the case on others. The challenges faced are more often different than they are easier or harder.

33
posted on 08/04/2014 8:48:04 AM PDT
by Sherman Logan
(Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)

It is interesting that Mr. Cain makes no effort to propose a more efficient or effective system.

I also think our present system is idiotic, and I don’t have a proposal that would work, much less one with something resembling a chance for being put into practice.

I do think that conservatives should be doing a “pre-primary” now. Figure out who we want to support and stick with him/her, instead of providing the idiotic picture of us flitting from candidate to candidate for months in search of the perfect conservative that last election provided.

34
posted on 08/04/2014 8:51:18 AM PDT
by Sherman Logan
(Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)

My first choice in the 2012 election would have been Herman Cain. However I could not even vote for him in our TN primary election because he had resigned his candidacy before the primary, thanks to the smears and lies by the left, and to some in here who bought the smears and lies hook line and sinker.

Do I think he would have made a good president? Yes I do and actually all our candidates would have made a good president with the exception of R.P.

36
posted on 08/04/2014 9:00:09 AM PDT
by Kaslin
(He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)

My point with the Catholic vote is that various exit polls (52-45, 51,48, etc) indicate that the majority of Catholics voted for Obama. I am not faulting you for being a Catholic as that is my faith too. I do, however, fault all of those who proclaim to be Catholic and still voted for this baby-killer. I will NOT lighten up on those Catholics because they are hypocrites.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.